Ariel wrote:This is scandalous.A time ago I learned that in England white English born children are being taken from their parent and put in care in Muslim housholds without a good reason.

I could not believe it. But when I read this strory, I have to believe it. This is bad.

A council spokesman said: ‘We are unable to comment on individual cases. In every case, we give absolute consideration to our children’s background and to their cultural identity.’

This, of course, is a euphemism for paying lip-service to the rules and then going their own sweet way. One step further than public "consulations" that are then ignored in favour of pre-determined intentions.Since it's the People's Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets, you can imagine the response to any criticism. You can also imagine the reaction if a Muslim child had been fostered with Christians and denied halal food, made to eat bacon and refused (even at age 5) permission to wear a headscarf while not being able to understand her fosterer's language properly.

"If a woman passes one kilometer from someone who is praying, is the prayer canceled then? What is the maximum distance from which a prayer is cancelled altogether?" Majid Oukacha

A study by the prestigious University of Cambridge says that since police officers started wearing body cameras, complaints against police have fallen by 93 per cent.

So that’s great news.

But what about when police racism is caught on tape, and even being bragged about?

The deputy commissioner of Scotland Yard — also known as the Metropolitan Police, the police force for Greater London — said in an interview that, as one newspaper put it:

“Don’t expect police to come out after a crime if you’re healthy, middle-aged and speak good English”So much for equality before the law.

Meanwhile, also out of London, comes a story of a “Christian child forced into Muslim foster care; Concern for girl who ‘had cross removed and was encouraged to learn Arabic.’”

Yet a few years back, when a foster child was found in the home of a family that voted for UKIP — the mainstream party that not only has received millions of votes, but that framed the key issue in the past quarter century for the UK, namely getting out of the European Union — merely being UKIP members caused a foster home to have the child ripped away from them.

An extremist Islamic preacher helped in the recruitment of foster parents, The Telegraph can disclose, amid a growing row over a Christian child placed in the care of devout Muslims.

The imam hosted a workshop for would-be foster carers just months after the High Court ruled him an “extremist Islamic speaker ” who had “promoted and encouraged religious violence”. His mosque, the Lewisham Islamic Centre, was attended by the killers of Fusilier Lee Rigby. The imam and the centre had condemned the murder.

The event was organised on behalf of the London borough of Lewisham as part of a drive to find more Muslims willing to foster children.

The disclosure comes amid a growing furore over the decision by crisis-ridden Tower Hamlets, another London council, to place a five-year-old girl in the care of two Muslim households.

A council source said the borough had a shortage of non-Muslim carers with whom to place Christian children.

In contrast, most councils have a shortage of Muslim families to provide foster care for children of Islamic heritage.

Lewisham Islamic Centre was chosen as the venue for a workshop “on the importance and need of foster carers in the Muslim community” in March this year. A photograph from the event posted on the mosque’s website shows the gathering being addressed by Shakeel Begg, the imam.

Mr Begg had just a few months earlier lost a High Court libel case against the BBC which accused him of promoting extremism.

Tom Wilson, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society who has written a research paper on Begg, condemned the hosting : “It is inconceivable that those who espouse extremism should be overseeing childcare of any kind, including fostering. Shakeel Begg was found to be an extremist in the High Court as recently as October, and despite this Lewisham Islamic Centre has kept him in place as Imam and a trustee.

"Institutions linked to extremism are in no position to be involved in the foster process”.

Lewisham Council declined to comment on Mr Begg’s suitability to host the meeting. A council spokesman said: “Like all councils we need foster carers from all parts of the community and we will continue to visit a range of groups to encourage more people to foster in Lewisham.”

NRS Foster Care Recruitment, which organised the workshop on behalf of Lewisham council, said it had no idea that Mr Begg had been branded an extremist and said he was not involved in the event. “We have no control over who may or may not be at an information sessions,” said a spokesman, adding: “We promote our services to different faith groups.”

Mr Begg was unavailable for comment. But he has in the past vigorously contested the High Court decision. “As regards the Judgment and the ‘extremist’ label, this is fully rejected,” according to a post on the Lewisham Islamic Centre website.

The Department for Education said it was undertaking a national fostering ‘stocktake’ that would examine the recruitment of foster carers.

The case in Tower Hamlets highlights the difficulty of matching children to the right carers. A council source suggested the borough lacked sufficient Christian families where children could be placed.

Anne Longfield, Children’s Commissioner for England, said: “I am concerned at these reports. A child’s religious, racial and cultural background should be taken into consideration when they are placed with foster carers.”

Michael Nazir-Ali, former bishop of Rochester, said: “It is quite clear that birth parents retain the right to a child’s religious beliefs and, in any case, guidance to foster parents requires that they give attention to a child’s cultural and religious identity.

“At the very least there’s been a violation of that requirement.”

Confidential local authority reports suggest one of the girl’s foster carers removed her necklace, which had a Christian cross, and also suggested she should learn Arabic. The girl was said at times to be “very distressed”. Her present carer allegedly wears a burka when with the child in public.

Tower Hamlets Council said in a statement on Tuesday that it disputed some of the claims in the case. A spokesman said: “While we cannot go into details of a case that would identify a child in foster care, there are inaccuracies in the reporting of it.

“For example, the child is in fact fostered by an English speaking family of mixed race in this temporary placement. We would like to give more details but we are legally restricted to do so.”

The spokesman added: “Tower Hamlets Council has the welfare of children at the heart of what we do. The decision to choose foster carers for a child is based on a number of factors including cultural background and proximity to promote contact with the child’s family and the child’s school in order to give them as much stability as possible.”

Good news...The girl is removed from her current foster care, and she is with her family now.

Judge Khatun Sapnara, a Muslim, told the council yesterday it was in the girl’s best interests to live with a family member who could keep her safe, promote her welfare and meet her needs ‘in terms of ethnicity, culture and religion’, The Times reported.

Sacked Barrow police officer's Facebook post 'was offensive towards Muslims'A SERVING Barrow PC who was dismissed from Cumbria police made a Facebook post which was likely to cause offence to members of the Muslim faith, a misconduct report has revealed.

Ross Lister was a serving PC in the town but was dismissed following a Misconduct Special Case Hearing held on September 27 at Cumbria Constabulary headquarters.

Details of the comment were not made public while the Crown Prosecution Service considered whether Mr Lister should be charged with an offence of posting malicious communications.

However it continues...

Yesterday, prosecutors announced that "the comment made on social media does not meet the very high threshold necessary for a criminal prosecution" following a further review of the evidence.[and in a separate article...]“As the suspect in the case has not been charged or summonsed for any offence in relation to the comment there will be no court appearance.”

So did the article go on to reveal what universally unacceptable remark

would have caused offence and be considered derogatory to members of the Muslim faith and by people of other faiths and none.[?]

This is clearly a matter of public interest: at worst, people should be able to see how much or how little they are allowed to say. There should be nothing to stop an online publication using a spoiler, or just providing a link, that Muslims need not look at.I am also concerned that this Facebook post was declared offensive to people of all religions or none. How can this be? How can I know whether it really would offend me and other people of no religion? Why is a Chief Constable allowed to decide that for me? How many non-religious people have complained? For that matter, how many Muslim people have complained? What is the minimum number of kilometres tweets it take to render a Facebook post unacceptable?

"If a woman passes one kilometer from someone who is praying, is the prayer canceled then? What is the maximum distance from which a prayer is cancelled altogether?" Majid Oukacha

Police wanted LIST of Private Eye subscribers over satirical jokePOLICE demanded Private Eye hand over the name of subscribers in three counties after a joke was cut out of the magazine and sent to a force employee.Officers got in touch with magazine bosses after a Muslim woman, who is working for Hertfordshire Police in a civilian role, was sent a clipping in the internal mail.

The force asked the satirical magazine’s chiefs to hand over a list of all its subscribers in Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire.

But its editor Ian Hislop refused leading the force to apply for a court order.The joke touched on Islamic terrorist meaning [sic] and was probed as a potentially racist offence under the Malicious Communications Act.

Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed

But Judge David Farrell QC, refused to allow the application to go ahead, even though it was reduced to just Hertfordshire at the Cambridge Crown Court hearing.

The police force was accused of taking a “shot in the dark”.

However, some were still hot

A force spokeswoman added: “We will continue to investigate allegations of hate crime thoroughly using all of our available resources.”

Oxford college bans 'harmful' Christian Union from freshers' fairFreddy Potts, vice-president of Balliol’s Junior Common Room (JCR) committee, said that if a representative from the Christian Union (CU) attended the fair, it could cause "potential harm" to freshers.

Mr Potts, writing on behalf of the JCR's welfare committee, told Lucy Talbot, the CU representative at Balliol, that their "sole concern is that the presence of the CU alone may alienate incoming students”."[Christianity] is still used in many places as an excuse for homophobia and certain forms of neo-colonialism"Freddy Potts, vice-president of Balliol’s Junior Common Room committee

In email correspondence, seen by The Daily Telegraph, he went on: “This sort of alienation or micro-aggression is regularly dismissed as not important enough to report, especially when there is little to no indication that other students or committee members may empathise, and inevitably leads to further harm of the already most vulnerable and marginalised groups.

“Historically, Christianity’s influence on many marginalised communities has been damaging in its methods of conversion and rules of practice, and is still used in many places as an excuse for homophobia and certain forms of neo-colonialism."

He said that barring the Christian Union from the fair “may be a way of helping to avoid making any students feel initially unwelcome within Balliol”.

Initially he said the JCR committee wanted the fair to be a “secular space”, explaining that since he "couldn't guarantee every major belief system" would have stalls at the the fair, students from other religions may "suffer" if their faith is not represented.

“Many students, especially students of colour and of other faiths, may already feel alienated and vulnerable in Oxford, a university with a reputation for racism and lack of diversity, and a city with barely any appropriate places of worship for non-Christians," he said.

“Hopefully, as people of faith, you may be able to empathise with this, and we ask you to consider from a place of compassion the potential harm to those freshers who are already severely and harmfully disadvantaged.”

Yes, it must be a terrible disadvantage to get a place at Baliol College Oxford.A college which says, by the way

Sports and societies

Balliol has lots of sports clubs and societies, and all of them are keen for Freshers to join in! Most will have tables at the Balliol Freshers Fair: see the timetables above.

A staggering rise in online hate crime, as people are attacked over Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites, has led to a gigantic leap in arrests in Britain.

British police are arresting nine people per day for attacks on the internet as they attempt to clamp down on hate speech online.

In some areas, this is up almost 900 percent from 2014.

The number of people detained for alleged attacks over the internet has rocketed in two years as social media allows users to verbally attack others.

“Trolling” can cause serious distress and high-profile politicians and campaigners have been targeted, as well as celebrities and ordinary people.

Last year, more than 3,300 people were detained and questioned, according to the Times.

Police in London arrested 867 people last year while West Midlands police arrested 635 suspects.

The increase in the Midlands is staggering as figures showed an 877 percent rise in the number of arrests since 2014, when 65 people were detained.

However, of these, around half of the investigations were dropped before prosecutions and campaigners have accused the police of threatening free speech.

Advocating civil liberties, people have been suggesting vile attacks over the internet should be allowed under rights to express feelings.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced a national police hub to combat the vitriol on the internet.

Using Freedom of Information requests, the Times found that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

In 2014 there were 2,315 arrests, compared with 2,755 in 2015.

This means there has been a rise of almost 50 percent between 2014 and 2016.

However, 15 forces did not submit data, meaning the real figure is likely to be higher.

Last year 1,696 people were charged and 1,399 convicted – despite almost 4,000 arrests.

Police have been blasted over what some see as a misuse of resources.

“These figures bear out what we’ve been saying: that police are wasting more and more time investigating people for comments online that are offensive but not criminal,” Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship, told the Times.

Stephen Kavanagh of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) defended the figures, saying officers have been working to keep up with the “changing nature of harm in our society.”

Are sharia laws being implemented? Is dhimmitude now the law of the land?

The government must clarify so we do not make mistakes and lose our livelihoods.I won't mention losing our freedoms because it was lost a long time ago.Isn't multiculturalism wonderful? Soon to be a monoculture.

Of course "hate speech" has increased: Facebook and Twitter have grown massively.If anything needs censoring out of existence, it's Facebook and Twitter themselves. They're forces for evil that exist only to make massive under-taxed profits.There: will I be arrested?Meanwhile,

Tech vs Trump: the great battle of our time has begunSocial media helped Donald Trump take the White House. Silicon Valley won’t let it happen again<snip>Google recently revealed that it is using machine learning to document ‘hate crimes and events’ in America. Among their partners in this effort is the notorious Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which maintains a list of ‘anti-Muslim extremists’ — including my wife, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the British liberal Muslim Maajid Nawaz — but no list whatsoever of Muslim extremists.

‘YouTube doesn’t allow hate speech or content that promotes or incites violence,’ declared a recent message to YouTube content creators. But who decides what is ‘hate speech’? The phrase has become the 21st-century equivalent of ‘heresy’. It’s what you call something before you proscribe it.

Silicon Valley insists it is home to neutral network platforms. This is no longer credible. Facebook alone has, without quite meaning to, evolved into the most powerful publisher in the history of the world. Zuckerberg is William Randolph Hearst to the power of ten.

Katie Freeman went “undercover” as a British Pakistani Muslim for the programme My Week as a Muslim, wearing a hijab and prosthetics to make her nose bigger.

She is heard admitting in the trailer that she normally “wouldn’t want to sit next to” a Muslim “in case they blow something up”.

The concept has sparked a furious race row, with hate crime charity Tell Mama saying it “crosses a line” and is “offensive” to Muslims.

“The most offensive bit is the gross exaggeration of features of the face, and that blurs the line, pandering to stereotypes of race and religion actually,” Fiyaz Mughal, founder of Tell Mama, told The Independent.

Channel 4 is the BBC with the brakes off.As for "stereotyping", do the Twits not understand the word "disguise"? Should she have bleached her hair and applied white makeup, while not forgetting the bacon sandwich, in order to pass un-noticed as a Pakistani Muslim?"Tell Mama" is, or course, well named: being a home for cry babies to cry "Wolf!". Not to mention long-since discredited.

"If a woman passes one kilometer from someone who is praying, is the prayer canceled then? What is the maximum distance from which a prayer is cancelled altogether?" Majid Oukacha